Appeal, No. 3, April T., 1956, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County, Jan. T., 1955, in Equity, No. 9, in case of Albert L. Urey v. W.E. Horchler, trading as Horchler Motor Sales, and Associates Discount Corporation. Order affirmed.
Nathan Routman, with him Harvey E. Moore, for appellant.
Sidney E. Rosenblum, with him John R. Boland, Jr., for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, and Ervin, JJ.
[ 180 Pa. Super. Page 483]
Albert L. Urey, a resident of Mercer County, Pennsylvania, is employed by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation at its plant in Sharon, Pennsylvania. On October 25, 1952, Urey purchased a motor vehicle from W.E. Horchler, doing business as Horchler Motor Sales (hereinafter referred to as Horchler), of Mercer, Pennsylvania, financing the same by means of a "Pennsylvania Bailment Lease". This lease was assigned by Horchler without recourse to Associates Discount Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Associates),
[ 180 Pa. Super. Page 484]
an Indiana corporation with a registered office in this Commonwealth at 215-219 North Highland Avenue, in the City of Pittsburgh. The lease provided for a total amount of $1241.31 to be paid in 21 monthly installments of $59.11 each, payment to be made at the branch office of Associates in Youngstown, Ohio. Urey subsequently became delinquent, whereupon the vehicle was sold, a deficiency judgment of $442.88 entered, and an attachment proceeding instituted by Associates in the Municipal Court of the City of Youngstown, wherein the Westinghouse Electric Corporation was named as garnishee. The attachment was served on Westinghouse at a sales office maintained by it in Youngstown, which office has no jurisdiction over the production facilities in Sharon.
On December 6, 1954, Urey filed a complaint in equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County, naming Horchler and Associates as defendants, and averring that the assignment and the attachment were for the express purpose of depriving him of the right to have his earnings exempt from application to the payment of his debts, in violation of the Acts of 1845 and 1887.*fn1 Urey requested that an injunction be issued restraining defendants from going forward with the attachment, alleging that said proceeding would compel Westinghouse to refuse him payment of the wages due him at the Sharon plant. Service was made
[ 180 Pa. Super. Page 485]
on Horchler by the Sheriff of Mercer County, on the Secretary of the Commonwealth by the Sheriff of Dauphin County, and by registered mail at the office of Associates in Pittsburgh, and on the attorneys for Associates in Youngstown, Ohio. A preliminary objection was filed by Associates raising the question of venue, in which it was asserted that "the action was not brought in a county where its registered office or principal place of business is located or in a county in which the right of action arose or in a county where it legally conducts business". The lower court subsequently entered an order dismissing the preliminary objection, and this appeal by Associates followed.
Appellant acknowledges that equitable action was "authorized",*fn2 and concedes that the complaint could have been filed in Allegheny County, where it maintains its registered office. It contends, however, that it is not amenable to process in Mercer County (1) under the Business Corporation Law because no right of action arose there; ...